Talk:SCOTUSblog

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volokh source

My point in restoring the Volokh source and therefore removing the notability and unsourced tags in addition to the prod was that in my opinion, it is a perfectly acceptable RS about legal blogging, and the statement and cite belongs in the article. With a good source in it, sourcing and expanding the article was not urgent. If there is no objection I will restore it.John Z (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there's such thing as an expert on law blogs, The Volokh Conspiracy—written by professors and having the highest traffic of any law blog—can be considered expert. Also consider the Las Vegas newspaper story, which quotes similar praise from the editor of the ABA journal. At any rate, I'll try to expand this over the holiday as time allows. Cool Hand Luke 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First post

Does anyone have access to the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process? According to Google news, it mentions SCOTUSblog in 2003. This is the article, but SCOTUSblog is not mentioned in the freely available part. Pcap ping 10:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on HeinOnline. Here's the only passage mentioning it:

Without a doubt, the best place to start exploring appellate weblogs is with Howard Bashman's "How Appealing" weblog.7 Bashman chairs the Appellate Group at Buchanan Ingersoll in Philadelphia. His weblog is a constant source of recent opinions, personal observations, appellate news, gossip and more. Other weblogs also have a primarily appellate content, but are more narrowly focused than Bashman's "How Appealing." SCOTUSblog,8 for example, provides thorough coverage of the Supreme Court. The primary SCOTUSblog blogger, Tom Goldstein, is, like Bashman, an appellate insider. He's a partner in a small specialty firm that practices only before the Supreme Court. In addition, some other legal weblogs, including those maintained by the uthors,9 consist primarily of appellate content.

The footnotes just say they were accessed in April 2003 at the old address www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/index.cfm. Wayback machine shows this blog existed under that address since 2002. Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP errors found on page

1 errors were found on SCOTUSblog in the references. The URLs and corresponding error type are shown below:

[('HTTP Error 404', u'http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/100,000')]

You may wish to remove the link or update it, as needed. Thank you, AiuwBot 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

I came across this article when I noticed the blog being mentioned at WP:RSN. Coming here, I notice that the name of Tom Goldstein is not mentioned in the text, only the references. Since he appears to be the prime mover of the blog, shouldn't that be rectified? He does have his own Wikipedia article. Also I found a May, 2009 article in the Washington Post that credits him as the founder of the blog: Howard Kurtz (31 May, 2009). "Scotusblog: High Court, High Speed, High Profile". Washington Post. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) I suggest that the Post article be added to the reference list. Some other items from the Post article that could be worth including:

The blog accepts no advertising, and is self-funded by Goldstein himself. The Post article says that Goldstein contributes about $100,000 per year. (The exact number may not be needed in the article).
Goldstein is married to Amy Howe, who was his colleague at his original firm, Goldstein and Howe. Her contributions also appeared in the first posting of the blog back in 2002. The blog itself doesn't say who founded it.

Let me know if anyone disagrees with addition of this material. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]